Bio not provided
Doyel chastising someone for an abrasive and confrontational communication style?
Saban does for occassional effect. Doyel does it for a living. How can he not see the hyprocrisy in that column?
1 year, 2 months ago on SEC Headlines – 9/7/12
@John at MrSEC I'll be voting. That doesn't mean I don't roll my eyes at all the ridiculous hypotheticals being put out by both sides and point out the tenuous nature of the comparisons attempting to be made by the two campaigns when I think those comparisons take it a step too far.
I did sort of lump you in with every other blog/columnist who opposed NCAA action at PSU and now connects that case to every NCAA matter to hit the headlines. Sorry about that. I'll spend a few more minutes thinking next time before I vent.
1 year, 3 months ago on From One SEC To Another: Ex-UGA Coach Donnan Charged In Ponzi Scheme
Can we stop already trying to connect everything back to Penn State?
If the University of Georgia knew its coach was defrauding investors, and if the NCAA knew that Georgia's President, Vice President, and Athletic Director knew about said fraud, and if the University of Georgia football program was a prominent component of the criminal lure, and if the University of Georgia's response was to request that the coach not bring investors on campus, and if that cover-up extended over a decade and remained on-going, and if....
But NONE of those ifs apply here. The NCAA is not bound by its Penn State ruling to step into every criminal matter - or any criminal matter, for that matter.
"But people will say...." People have been saying the NCAA stinks every time it acts and every time it doesn't. We can debate "what ifs" all day and the dangers of precedent in every NCAA action or inaction. Because choosing not to act is just another precedent with its own dangers.
Love the blog. Getting tired of this theme.
The really scary thing is that the NCAA's idea of "conduct" has more to do with the compliance effort than the actual shenanigans. Maybe the categories should be: piss-poor effort at CYA (severe); inadequate effort at CYA (significant); acceptable effort at CYA (breach); and wonderful job of CYA (incidental). That way, a school can give their players test answers hidden in stacks of $20s as long as they are willing to throw enough people under the bus or kick them into early retirement.
Can't wait for the first school to get 4 years, initiating PSU comparison rants for 6 months.
1 year, 4 months ago on It Looks Like NCAA Enforcement Changes Are On The Way
@John at MrSEC @JeffreyImm1 "Third, you're asking me a question that has zip to do with the point of the above piece. That's what frustrates me. I write X... everyone takes it as Y... then asks me about Z. Still, I'll answer your question."
It might have zip to do with the specific post, but it has much to do with your collective body of work on this issue. Comes from seeing this piece as part of a larger narrative.
"Count me among the few -- and it the seems the few are mainly a minority of media members and legal and NCAA experts..."
Maybe I'm just reading a highly select group of columnists and bloggers, but I would say the ratio of against/for NCAA action in this case has been running 10 to 1. A lot of highly recognizable names rushed out columns in between the leaks Sunday evening and Monday morning's announcement condemning the NCAA's involvement, and then those same names, plus a lot more, rushed out columns condemning the actions Monday afternoon.
I think I'm safe saying that many seem to prefer the NCAA to remain a committee-driven bureaucracy with its hand tied by a dozen cooks in the kitchen. We hate bureaucracy but fear power? Is that the contradiction we can't resolve here (or Washington)?
At any rate, I'm not one of those who thinks the NCAA rushed out to do this to rehabilitate its image or get its name in the papers. I think they saw the weight of evidence, in comparison to what they usually have available, as overwhelming. They've never seen themselves as a court of law or bound to standards of reasonable doubt, despite the constant comparisons in the media (and as an aside, "reasonable" doubt does not mean "beyond a shadow of" doubt). The conclusion that Curly, Shultz and Spanier knew what Sandusky was doing and set him up as the face of child charity is in the "beyond a shadow of doubt" territory as fas as I am concerned. That makes what Joe knew and when relatively unimportant - though I think it's reasonable to conclude he knew what was going on by 1998 at the latest.
At that point, it just comes down to this - are crimes committed to protect an NCAA sports program an NCAA matter or a legal matter? But the phrasing of that question determines the answer - the "or" answers the question for you. "and/or" seems a more appropriate question, and I fall into the "and" camp. But, I understand those who don't. I just don't being characterized as a "lynch mob." I've given this s much thought and consideration as you, but that doesn't give me the right to categorize your position as "knee-jerk."
Enjoy the blog, and I do appreciate the substantive responses you provide to people who ask for them. Kudos.
1 year, 4 months ago on Free Advice To Schools: Don't Ask For Outside Reviews On Scandals
@John at MrSEC @JeffreyImm1 And what would be a perfect report? Is report perfection required to act by the NCAA? You've shredded posters who pointed out inconsistencies in NCAA penalties before as homers who ignore the body of evidence and focus too narrowly on a minor procedural point or inconsistencies within the report itself. What's the difference here? Serious question, not a swipe.
I've seen plenty of accusations from lots of quarters that the report "draws conclusions" rather than states facts - which is really just a rehash of the basic philoshical question, "What do we know to be true versus what do we believe to be true," that dates back to, oh, Socrates. Probably earlier than that. At any rate, we "know" when Sandusky suddenly retired (and I remember it - it was a headline shocker). We "know" when he was asked to stop bringing kids to campus. Those are a matter of public record. What conclusions can we draw from those two facts alone? Now, add the court evidence and testimony from the 45 convictions. What conclusions would be reasonable at that point? Now, add the Freeh report. What conclusions are reasonable by this point?
Finally, I've seen numerous references to the Duke lacrosse case from bloggers (can't recall if you used it or not). Yes, a corrupt DA withheld certain evidence and overlooked lots of mitigating circumstances. He was exposed and the case dismissed in a time frame far shorter than this one. The case was always the word of one "victim" against the players. The "record" in that case was always thin and fell apart under scrutiny pretty quickly. The record here is 100x larger and has been vetted again and again by prosecutors, defense lawyers, and the media.
The NCAA and PSU agreed on a course of action. A man who strikes a plea bargain waives his rights to due process. It happens all the time, every day. How is this any different?
Should the Freeh report have been used by the NCAA? Should it have been used in concert with evidence compiled by the criminal investigations? Should media statements given by JoePa count? What about grand jury testimony leaks? Or should the NCAA have ignored all of that record and done its own investigation?
Fascinating law school or journalism class questions. Not sure how they apply here.
I think the UNC faculty WANTS to blow up the athletic culture on campus. They were voting to pull UNC out of the NCAA 20 years ago, and they haven't stopped trying since. They see it a blow for academic integrity, and they feel that UNC still pulls enough weight that such a blow will resonate across the academic world coast to coast.
But the NCAA is done with this case. UNC presented enough of the Nyang'Oro evidence to the NCAA - and forced out both Butch and Nyang'Oro the moment it became clear they were still running their scam in the middle of an NCAA investigation - that the NCAA can plausibly say they have layered it into the mix. And UNC already had an independent investigation turn over all the leaves with respect to Blake.
UNC can and will do an independent investigation, the NCAA will praise them for it, and everyone will blast them for hypocrisy, since they crushed PSU with the help of the Freeh report.
Which is all procedural myopia ignoring that one school covered and enabled a child rapist for so many years that NO amount of procedural transparency was going save the day.
@John at MrSEC ??? Let's back up.
Of course it's money-driven. That, in and of itself, is no big deal. Everything in our culture is money-driven, even non-profits: churches, adoption agencies, you name it. I use those two examples because the amount of money I've funneled into those two versus college sports would be a ratio of approximately 100 to 1.
Making money should be a means to an end, not an end justifying all means. That's where Penn State crossed the line. They protected the mission of making money rather than (take your pick: basic human decency, education, etc). And that line is increasingly being blurred in the wider culture by this following sensibility: "Did we make a huge profit? Then the Invisible Hand approves; damn the consequences to others." A Goldman Sachs executive resigned a few months ago and wrote a blistering op-ed saying that GS' business model had degenerated into legalized theft, preying on the trust on clients to churn and burn their accounts. Reaction by a significant chunk of the opinion-ators: "Yawn. They're making money. It's what they're supposed to be doing. Clients should be better informed." Seriously?
So - when that line gets crossed, it needs to be highlighted. it needs to be corrected. The courts are not going to highlight it. They deal in minutia for the most part, not social statements, even if people want to interpret their rulings in that light.
Professional associations of lawyers, CPAs and doctors understand this and police themselves above and beyond the courts. The NCAA just exercised that right. I'd like to see more of that sensibility at work in our culture, rather than just leaving our notions of "community" up to the courts and cable television.
1 year, 4 months ago on Emmert Talks About Changing Cultures (Just Pay No Attention To The Cash Behind The Curtain)
@John at MrSEC He didn't bust PSU for making money. He busted PSU for putting the printing of money ahead of child rape victims. The pursuit of money has become a sacred thing in our culture, to the point that it supersedes almost everything else and becomes an end justifying heinous means. A big enough profit washes away all sins, it seems. That's hardly unique to college football, and I'm glad someone finally decided to draw a line somewhere. And for the record, I would like to see it drawn a little more aggressively in areas besides college football.
@Bocktean Incivility is incivility. Disagreement has nothing to do with it.
I didn't say there was a difference in the nut. I said there was a difference in the environment the nuts operate in. You said less Glocks would result in suicide bombers: "If you want to turn this country into a place where nut jobs hurl bombs into crowded places or strap homemade explosives in their underwear and go to a pizzeria full of kids, just make it tougher to get a Glock. There's a name for places like that. It's called Israel." I asked two simple questions, which I really would like to hear an answer, which is why I have now asked three times. I am genuinely curious:
1 - How would more Glocks in the hands of Palestinians stop suicide bombers?
2 - How would more Glocks in the hands of Israelis stop suicide bombers?
I've been to Israel. There's a trained soldier with an automatic weapon at every turn. How are more guns going to deter suicide bombers? It's a genuine question, not a sarcastic rejoinder.
1 year, 4 months ago on Allergy Medicine And Cigars Are Tougher To Get Than An Arsenal Of Weapons
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Makes sense.
But someone has to make a decision to do something or do nothing. Yes, the universities are making money hand over fist from games played by young men and women who receive services of some value but no real money for their efforts. And I suppose you could argue that removes all moral authority to pass judgements of any kind.
Penn State basically put Sandusky in charge of their Child Relations division - after knowing what he had been accused of. I am not going to lose sight of that just because the judge and jury in this case have warts.
@Bocktean You make the comparison to say they're the same thing, but you won't explore clear differences - because that doesn't meet your agenda. You call it "settled," yet gun laws can and do constantly change, If it's "settled," then why does the NRA constantly push for less regulations? Because it's not settled. Never has been.
You're beginning to sound like one of those with all the answers because only you get to pick all the questions. Again, I'm not for banning guns. I have civil conversations on this topic all the time with friends in the NRA who want to explore reasonable opinions and differing views. Guess that's not happening here.
Have a nice day.
@Bocktean He had a shotgun, semi-auto rifle, and a Glock at a densely packed room of people. I'm not sure aim was really involved.
@Bocktean For the record, it was your "bogus" distinction. I was just asking questions about it. Want to revisit them?
1 - Should Palestinians be allowed the same access to guns as Americans?
2 - How would more Israeli access to guns deter suicide bombers?
I am not for banning guns. As I noted, I have plenty of friends with guns, and I've taken the time to train my son, because he's going to be around them. I do think a lot of gun lobby arguments are pure crap - just as some of the gun control arguments are pure crap. If we can weed out some of this crap on both sides, maybe we can have a real discussion.
It's not hand-wringing. It's a policy discussion.
Hitting a moving target about the size of a soccer ball (face) in a dark theater about 20 yards away while its shooting an automatic weapon: damn near impossible. Heck, remove the shooting back part. If AE's: Top Shot" competitors routinely miss that sort of shot, I'm going to guess Average Joe could never hit it.
Would Israel be safer if it were easier to get a Glock? Depends on what you mean by safer. But the comparison conveniently ignores the political hatred fueling those fires. Are you suggesting that Israel allow the Palestinians to arm themselves so they can shoot Israeli citizens instead of bomb them? Or for average Israeli citizens to arm themselves so they can shoot suspected bombers? Did OK's conceal-carry laws deter McVeigh? Or change his choice of terrorist act?
I took my son to a gun safety class, even though we don't own one - because all of his friends' homes have guns. This nation is crawling in guns, and it doesn't seem to be having any of the effects people claim. it doesn't deter crime. It doesn't prevent murders. I don't see how more of them would change anything. I could see how less might. But this is fundamentally a political question and an untouchable one for the most part at that. Kudos to Mr. P for sounding his opinion. That's in the Constitution, too.
@John at MrSEC I understand where you're coming from, but I see Emmert's position in this as well. Children were being raped, and the larger priority in Happy Valley was keeping the football trains running on time. It's much more a criminal matter than an NCAA one, but that doesn't mean it's not a serious NCAA matter as well. You seem to fall into the "either/or" camp. I'm in the "both."
Subjectivity is inherent in... well, everything. Yes, people will have different opinions. They do already on everything else the NCAA does -- too lenient, too harsh, too passive, too active. How does Emmert's purported actions at 9 a.m. change that part of the equation? The differences between cases always matters in all evaluative systems. They will always be debated. They always should be, really.
Again, I do not buy the idea that the NCAA cannot ever get involved in criminal cases. Coaches suspend players or mete out extra punishment above and beyond what the legal system hands down all the time, with nary a peep from anyone. But the same cannot be done in PSU's case? Or one worse? All because someone might screw up and use the power in a case with a lesser threshold down the road?
Paterno used the NCAA as a platform to build his Saint Joe persona - and then he let Sandusky use the Saint Joe facade to lure victims into his web. The NCAA's not involved in this by choice. It's not wading into someone else's territory. They're dealing with a pile of crap that Paterno and PSU dumped on them. If the power gets abused down the road, then I will be first in line to argue that the power is being misused at that time. But if and when that happens, it won't retroactively make what Emmert's going to do in a few hours wrong.
1 year, 4 months ago on The NCAA Is About To Make A Big Mistake With Penn State
@John at MrSEC Covering up criminal behavior which risks - but has not yet risen - to the level of harming other individuals is NOT the same thing as covering up harm to other individuals. Both are bad. One is way worse. When the actual harm in question is child rape, it's off-the-charts worse.
What was being covered up matters tremendously here. So does the scale of the cover-up effort. Tossing out theoretical anecdotes which keep the basic principal intact (a matter of kind) while ignoring the scope (a matter of scale) seems a problem to me. Yes, covering up a drunken coach's behavior until someone actually gets hurt is arguably similar in kind. But covering up that behavior after multiple people are hurt is clearly different in scale and arguably different in kind as well. Once someone got hurt, a crucial line was crossed.
Dangerous precedent? Maybe. Maybe not. Remains to be seen what Emmert does tomorrow and how he justifies it.
Your analogy is s bit off. It wouldn't be covering up a drunk driver until he ran someone over. It would be covering up a drunk driver who ran over at least 10 people, a few of them in the weight room parking lot.
Look at this from the other side of the canyon. If the NCAA isn't going to do anything in this case, then under what circumstances would it ever be justified? If institutional facilitation of child rape is beyond the review of the NCAA, then what power does it hold over its membership at all? None? Is there nothing a school could do criminally that violates its membership agreement enough to justify a visit behind the wood shed?
If Emmert oversteps, the NCAA membership will (A) wipe out the penalties on appeal, and (B) rewrite their rules. Because they have the freedom to write their own rules, to appoint executives to enforce them, and to create committees to review both the rules and enforcement - which is exactly what is happening here. This power has always existed. It's just never been needed.
Power is going to be abused at some point. It's the nature of power itself. Abdicating power results in abuses as well - different abuses, but still abuses. It all comes down to finding the right balance. Which standard is better for the NCAA? One that says the NCAA must unilaterally bow out of all criminal matters no matter what? Or one which says the President, in concert with his board, can act in extreme cases, subject to review by an appeals committee?
I actually prefer the second.
Why would a school like Wisconsin want an all-or-nothing home and home instead of one neutral site game? Isn't one better than none?
Neutral site games are season openers. They hog the limelight. They get all the pre-season buzz, much like Bama-Michigan sneaks into most off-season columns about the upcoming season. I'm surprised Wisconsin would walk away from the opportunity. Alabama will find a suitable neutral site partner. Wisconsin won't find a similar opportunity.
Mistake by the Badgers.
1 year, 5 months ago on Report: Bama Turns Down Wisconsin Series; Other Leagues Toughening Their Strength Of Schedule
Don't underestimate this. Franklin just made himself a mortal enemy of every female faculty member of every campus coast to coast. Not something to be taken lightly for a guy who wants to be a college football coach.
I'm a guy, a sales manager, and a someone tired of seeing so many statements taken so literally, but, having said all that...
...I find just about everything in those statements to be absurd. He's an idiot. He's given me a reason to root against Vandy, and that takes some doing.
1 year, 6 months ago on VU's Franklin Won't Hire A Guy With An Ugly Wife?